- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Murder Case Against MoS Ajay...
Murder Case Against MoS Ajay Mishra: Allahabad HC Permits Revisionist's Legal Heirs To Participate In State's Appeal Against Acquittal
Sparsh Upadhyay
16 Feb 2023 12:46 PM GMT
The Allahabad High Court on Monday allowed the legal heirs of Santosh Gupta (now dead), who was the complainant in the Prabhat Gupta Murder case of 2000 in which the Union Minister Ajay Mishra 'Teni' is the prime accused, to participate, as 'Victims', in the State's appeal moved before the High Court challenging Teni's acquittal.The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Om...
The Allahabad High Court on Monday allowed the legal heirs of Santosh Gupta (now dead), who was the complainant in the Prabhat Gupta Murder case of 2000 in which the Union Minister Ajay Mishra 'Teni' is the prime accused, to participate, as 'Victims', in the State's appeal moved before the High Court challenging Teni's acquittal.
The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Om Prakash Shukla passed this order on an application moved before it bringing on record the surviving legal heirs of the original revisionist (Santosh Gupta), who, being the complainant, had instituted a revision plea before the HC in 2005 against the judgment of acquittal.
It may be noted that this case dates back to the year 2000 when a rising student leader named Prabhat Gupta was shot dead near his house in Tikonia (Lakhimpur Kheri). In this case, 4 people including Union Minister Teni were named as accused. In 2004, he was acquitted by the lower Court.
Now, against the order of the lower court, a revision plea under Section 397/ 401 Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant/revisionist (Santosh Gupta/father of deceased Prabhat Gupta). The revision was admitted in February 2005 and was connected with the Criminal Appeal filed by the state government against the acquittal order.
During the pendency of the criminal revision connected with the aforesaid criminal appeal filed by the State, the revisionist passed away and thus, his legal heirs were brought on record.
In its order, the Court noted that the revisional proceedings before the High Court are maintainable under section 397 read with 401 Cr. P.C and such a proceeding arising out of acquittal of the accused persons would normally abate with the death of the revisionist unlike an appeal where substitution of the victim is permissible under 394 Cr.P.C. but for the pendency of State appeal as aforesaid.
The Court further added in the present case, the connected appeal instituted by the State is pending against the same very judgment, therefore, the consequence of abatement of the present revision is inconsequential and does not leave the legal heirs of the revisionist as remediless.
"The legal heirs of the revisionist have an opportunity of participating in the pending criminal appeal instituted by the State as victims, for which, a similar application has been made by the applicants in the connected criminal appeal," the Court remarked.
With this, disposing of the application, the Court permitted the legal heirs or any one of them to participate in the connected criminal appeal as victims. The accused respondents did not object to the same and thus.
Lastly, the Court clarified that disposal of the application shouldn't suggest that the Court has dealt with the matter in all possible situations where a criminal appeal by the State may not have been instituted against the acquittal
The background of the case
The allegations against Teni are that he had a dispute with the deceased regarding the Panchayat elections, and hence, the deceased was shot dead by Teni and co-accused Subhash alias Mama. It is the state's case that the testimony of the eyewitness was ignored by the trial court.
On the other hand, Teni's case is that the trial court had not found the testimony of the alleged eyewitness to be reliable, and hence, the trial court was justified in acquitting him of the offence.
It may be noted that earlier, a co-ordinate Bench of the High Court heard the appeal finally and reserved its order on March 12, 2018, however, the same was released subsequently by the bench on the application filed by the complainant/applicant as the judgment was not delivered after more than six months and the matter was ordered to be listed for final hearing.
Thereafter, four years lapsed but the matter could not be heard finally, hence an application for early listing of the appeal for a final hearing was filed earlier in 2022. Hearing the matter on April 7, 2022, a division bench of the High Court directed that the matter be listed for final hearing on May 16, 2022, before the appropriate Bench.
Despite the Division bench's order, the judgment in the case could not be delivered, and the case was adjourned at least 8 times (till October 17, 2022).
In October 2022, the Supreme Court rejected Mr. Teni's prayer to transfer the instant Government appeal from Allahabad High Court's Lucknow bench to Prayagraj Bench. Instead, the bench of the then Chief Justice UU Lalit and Justice Bela M. Trivedi made a request to the High Court to hear the appeal for disposal on November 10, 2022, the date given by the High Court and agreed upon by Senior Counsels for both the sides.
Essentially, Mishra had moved to the Supreme Court after his plea for transfer of the Government's appeal was dismissed by the Chief Justice-led bench of the Allahabad High Court. He had sought the transfer on the ground that the Senior Counsel who is representing him was ordinarily based in Allahabad and because of his old age, it would not be possible for him to go all the way to Lucknow for arguments.
In this regard, the Supreme Court observed that in case the Senior Counsel (representing Mishra) is unable to come down to Lucknow, a request for allowing said counsel to make submissions through videoconferencing may be considered by the High Court.
Read more about the background of the case here: Murder Case Against MoS Ajay Mishra 'Teni'| Allahabad HC Posts Case For Final Hearing In January After Complainant's Alleged Son Intervenes
Appearances
Counsel for Revisionist: Sushil Kumar Singh, Armendra Pratap Singh, Pradeep Chaurasia
Counsel for Opposite Party: Govt.Advocate, Rajiva Dubey
Case title - Santosh Gupta vs. State Of U.P.And 4 Ors [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 221 of 2004]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 63
Click Here To Read/Download Order
